There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Sifu · September 22, 2009, 5:31am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.

It is a pre-amble:

Fish can swim, birds can fly, pancakes rule supreme, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might also notice that those “people” are not given that right by anyone, it already exists and it shall not be infringed by the US government.

Given the Lockean nature of the US constitution that is really the only interpretation that makes sense, what you are doing is grasping for straws.

In any legal document the exact wording, punctuation, and phrasing are important to determining the intent of statement. It cannot be dismissed as preamble. The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Constitution, I’m just making the argument that the second amendment has been interpreted different ways by people of different political leanings. To be viewed a legal dogma is shortsighted. This makes the discussion about universal gun ownership open to anyone who wishes to demonstrate their position with facts. To simply assert that it’s your second amendment right and case closed only shows that you cannot defend yourself with logic and reason.

It also avoids the question of whether a well armed militia is still needed in the modern US.[/quote]

Of course it is. That is a ridiculous question. The armed citizenry of this country provide a depth to this countries defenses that noone can overcome. It has worked brilliantly for the Israelis, there is no way they could have fended off the Arabs without their citizen soldiers.

At it’s most basic level militia means armed citizen. The well regulated militia clause of the second amendment is an extremely important extension of the first amendment right of assembly. Without that right we would not legally be able to unite as an armed group. Without it we would only be able to be armed individuals who could be picked off one by one by one. Or if we wanted to assemble for a mass demonstration against the government we would would not be able to go armed.

The well regulated portion has been narrowly defined by gun control nuts to legitimize gun control laws but regulate doesn’t just mean making rules. To regulate something means to provide direction or control. To provide direction or control can also be called leadership. So without the well regulated clause we could be arrested for being ring leaders of the militia.

The well regulated militia clause directly deals with the two primary strategies that tyrants use which are to use force to break up protests and round up the ringleaders so there can’t be organised resistance.

Sifu · September 22, 2009, 5:48am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:

OK, 5000 glassings, 61,000,000 people, random glassing probability in any given year = 0.00008 I would say that is pretty close to nil.[/quote]

That is 1 out of 12,000 people or just a little bt under 9 per 100,000. By way of comparison the murder rate in the US is 5.9 per 100,000. So you are one and a half times more likely to get glassed in Britain than murdered in America.

Let’s also not forget that according to the Police Recorded Crime Statistics there were around 22,000 knifings last year in Britain and it is estimated that only 1 in 5 incidents is reported to the police. The 2008 British Crime Survey estimates there were 130,000 incidents.

Sifu · September 22, 2009, 6:00am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, it was first specifically mentioned in the Bill of RIghts of 1689 and the right was not for everyone, only Protestants and it was not all arms, it was arms as befitting their social position.[/quote]

Actually the concept predates the Magna Carta. Given the circumstances of the time it makes perfect sense that it was limited to Protestants. Also at that time Ones social position was reflective of ones economic status. So wealthy noble men would buy themselves nice swords, armor maybe bring their horse while peasents might only get a pike or a hammer. It was 1688 so what is your point?

Sifu · September 22, 2009, 6:21am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
phaethon wrote:

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Remind your friends that everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership by common citizens is high and gun control is low, violent crime is relatively low - in fact in many cases it’s downright rare. Inversely, everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership is severely restricted violent crime is relatively higher. The statistics, the facts, and good common sense refute your buddies’ sillines. Google Gary Kleck.

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.[/quote]

The safe areas are safe because the armed citizenry can provide their for own security without having to call, beg and wait for a delivery service come and provide such service according to it’s own priorities. They are also safer because when citizens are armed it is easier for the police to get people to talk to them. Overall it makes the police much more effective

In New York it is a free for all where the only protection people have is a handful of over worked police. It is also a place where people can be threatened with retaliation for going to the police and people know the police can’t be there for them and they can’t defend themselves. Which is the same situation they now have in Britain. Gun control makes the police much less effective.

Sifu · September 22, 2009, 6:37am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

Cockneyblue has posted something very similar here. The reason why they think that way is they have been bombarded for years with the message that guns equal insanity. Since they have been programmed to believe that guns equal insanity it perfectly logical to them that anything that is done with a gun will be insane and over the top.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Of course. Because the dogma has been repeatedly drilled into their head that guns equal insanity any questioning of that dogma is treated as an act of insanity. The reason why is it has become a belief system like a religion. For them it is an article of faith that gun control is proper. Any questioning of their faith is herecy. Therefore GOD should punish you by killing your family because you have questioned their belief.

You should ask them. If I am brainwashed and a nutter, why are you the ones saying that my family should die merely because I asked a reasonable question as to why we don’t see your wild exagerations played out in the real world?

If anyone is displaying insanity and brainwashing it is the gun control faithful who see nothing wrong with innocent lives being sacrificed for their beliefs.

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.[/quote]

The only problem with your theory is there is a very solid basis for the idea that guns = liberty. Afterall we did have to fight for many years to gain our liberty. And when we look around the world at countries where the people don’t have arms they don’t have liberty. Just a few months ago we saw democratic protestors in Iran getting gunned down by their government. So you need to stop fronting.

[quote]
Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs. [/quote]

According to the US Departmentof Justice there are over 400,000 people alive today because they were able to defend themselves with a gun. There are a lot more people alive than dead because of guns and the places with the highest death tolls are the ones with gun control laws that stop people from defending themselves. If anyone is dying for someone elses beliefs it is people who are dying because gun control has rendered them defenseless.

[quote]
Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes. This is more important than arguing back and forth over gun control.

There is no realistic chance that within our lifetimes that all of the guns in private ownership in the US will be taken by the government. There is also no realistic chance that the UK will repeal it’s gun laws.[/quote]

If there is no realistic chance that Britain will repeal it’s gun laws then there is no realistic chance that they can reduce their rising violent crime without even more draconian steps to turn the country into even more of a police state.

NinjaTreeFrog · September 22, 2009, 12:12pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

?

What do you mean, “the state collective?” What is that? Are you saying the Bill of Rights, that’s what we’re talking about here, gives the state the right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the people themselves? What is this state collective?

The United States is a collection of individual States made from a collective of persons living with a geographical area. That is what I mean by State collective.

So your argument is that the 2nd grants the state government the right to keep and bear arms?[/quote]

No, my argument is that the 2nd amendment grants the people of the state to form a REGULATED militia, which is permitted to bear arms. This is much different than saying all citizens are permitted to have/bear arms. It seems rather clear to me that this is the purpose of the amendment - to balance the power between the states and the federal government. Not to grant private gun ownership to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

NinjaTreeFrog · September 22, 2009, 12:17pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

You obviously haven’t studied the history. The second amendment is a direct descendent of the Magna carta right of rebellion against the state. Militia have a long tradition in British common law and were seen as a way to prevent the state from abusing the people with a large standing army. So when the second amendment refers to militia it is referring to long history of military power that is not under the control of the state.

Again, 18th century “bear arms” refers to tools of warfare. Does the individual have the same right to tools of warfare as the US government? Does any person have a god-given right to a nuclear bomb?

Again you are resorting to ridiculous exagerations with nuclear weapons. This is a clear example of your histrionics.
[/quote]

This just supports my original statement that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. If one needs to refer to Magna Carta, or any other pre-existing document or set of laws to justify an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, then clearly the amendment is ambiguous.

Actually, your own judiciary has declared that the 2nd amendment has precisely the meaning I’ve interpreted…

“The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” -United States v. Miller

Sloth · September 22, 2009, 1:46pm

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
No, my argument is that the 2nd amendment grants the people of the state to form a REGULATED militia, which is permitted to bear arms. This is much different than saying all citizens are permitted to have/bear arms. It seems rather clear to me that this is the purpose of the amendment - to balance the power between the states and the federal government. Not to grant private gun ownership to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.[/quote]

The right of the people is recognized. No qualifiers, no “members of the state certified militia group,” nothing even remotely resembling what you just said. Noone is going to buy this argument. The language is simply too clear.

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 1:52pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is a real good example of what is wrong with Britain not only do they not have the right to keep and bear arms, they don’t have freedom of speech. Look at this bullshit, these poor people were arrested and are facing criminal charges for saying something which is true. This is why America has the second amendment, so people can speak the truth freely without fear of reprisal from their government.

“A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.”

“It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.”

Alternatively you could wait until there is an outcome to the trial before passing judgement. Perhaps they were threatening, perhaps they weren’t, reporting it before the case comes to court is solely designed to stir up the knuckle grazers. Seems to have worked huh?

What is wrong with you? Is there no outrage that you won’t try to spin doctor or rationalize?

The simple fact that they have been arrested is outrageous and is a terrible blow to freedom of speech. Even if they ultimately win their case these types of cases are a deliberate attack on freedom of speech. Because even if they are fully exonerated they will have been penalized. This is costing them for lawyers, there is the loss of business while they take time out to answer to these charges, the stress of a criminal prosection and their reputation being dragged through the dirt. Their freely speaking their mind in their own home will have cost them.

What about the charge of giving offense? That is a ridiculous legal standard because anyone can say that they are offended by anything that anyone says. If people can be criminally charged and penalized for saying something that is offensive to someone else freedom of speech is dead.

What the government is doing to those people is absolutely indefensible. How can you not find this outrageous? The only thing I can figure out is that you are so deeply in denial that there is nothing the government could do that you would not rationalize or try to justify. You claim not to be a Guardianista yet there is no outrage the Labour party can commit that you will denounce.
[/quote]

OK Sifu, I will try and help you out here as you are obviously struggling with basic concepts here.

The way it works is, someone makes a complaint to the police about something. The police investigate, if they feel their is enough evidence to bring a prosecution, they do. Then both sides present their case to a judge and jury, a decision is made based on the evidence then if someone is found guilty sentence is passed. At this point all of the evidence used is public record and their is enough information for me to pass an opinion.

Yes reading the newspaper report it seems like a ridiculous case but the newspaper report is very short on facts and is obviously written in a very biased way therefore I don’t feel a need to be outraged at this stage.

Uncle_Gabby · September 22, 2009, 1:56pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.
[/quote]
My natural right to defend myself is the more fundamental and important than any other “liberty.”

And innocent people regularly use guns to defend themselves and their families.

You’re going to work on human nature now? If you know anything at all about history you know that’s a scary statement.

Sloth · September 22, 2009, 1:57pm

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 1:59pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, it was first specifically mentioned in the Bill of RIghts of 1689 and the right was not for everyone, only Protestants and it was not all arms, it was arms as befitting their social position.

Actually the concept predates the Magna Carta. Given the circumstances of the time it makes perfect sense that it was limited to Protestants. Also at that time Ones social position was reflective of ones economic status. So wealthy noble men would buy themselves nice swords, armor maybe bring their horse while peasents might only get a pike or a hammer. It was 1688 so what is your point? [/quote]

Prior to the bill of rights there was only an implied right to bear arms due to the fact that there was no legislation specifically banning it.

The social position was not about money, it was about social position. Only a person of a certain status could have a longbow. Only a person of a certain status could carry a sword etc. It wasn’t because they could afford it, it was because it was seen to be unnatural for people of a lower status to carry certain weapons because they were not worthy.

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 2:01pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
phaethon wrote:

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Remind your friends that everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership by common citizens is high and gun control is low, violent crime is relatively low - in fact in many cases it’s downright rare. Inversely, everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership is severely restricted violent crime is relatively higher. The statistics, the facts, and good common sense refute your buddies’ sillines. Google Gary Kleck.

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.

The safe areas are safe because the armed citizenry can provide their for own security without having to call, beg and wait for a delivery service come and provide such service according to it’s own priorities. They are also safer because when citizens are armed it is easier for the police to get people to talk to them. Overall it makes the police much more effective

In New York it is a free for all where the only protection people have is a handful of over worked police. It is also a place where people can be threatened with retaliation for going to the police and people know the police can’t be there for them and they can’t defend themselves. Which is the same situation they now have in Britain. Gun control makes the police much less effective.[/quote]

So why has the crime and murder rate dropped significantly since the law was changed?

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 2:54pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If anyone is displaying insanity and brainwashing it is the gun control faithful who see nothing wrong with innocent lives being sacrificed for their beliefs.

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.

The only problem with your theory is there is a very solid basis for the idea that guns = liberty. Afterall we did have to fight for many years to gain our liberty. And when we look around the world at countries where the people don’t have arms they don’t have liberty. Just a few months ago we saw democratic protestors in Iran getting gunned down by their government. So you need to stop fronting.
[/quote]

So before guns there was no liberty?

To borrow a phrase from the NRA, a gun is just a tool, liberty comes from people not from tools.

What a ridiculous statistic? That number is totally meaningless. What timescale are you talking about? how is it estimated? I have a stat for you from a report written in 2000

‘Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.’ Trumps your 400,000.

[quote]
Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes. This is more important than arguing back and forth over gun control.

There is no realistic chance that within our lifetimes that all of the guns in private ownership in the US will be taken by the government. There is also no realistic chance that the UK will repeal it’s gun laws.

If there is no realistic chance that Britain will repeal it’s gun laws then there is no realistic chance that they can reduce their rising violent crime without even more draconian steps to turn the country into even more of a police state. [/quote]

The US has plenty of areas that have a rising crime rate so guns are evidently not the answer.

Sloth · September 22, 2009, 3:14pm

The fact that some wish to take them away, shows they’re still needed, today.

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 4:36pm

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.

My natural right to defend myself is the more fundamental and important than any other “liberty.”

Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.

And innocent people regularly use guns to defend themselves and their families.

Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes.

You’re going to work on human nature now? If you know anything at all about history you know that’s a scary statement.

[/quote]

So working to improve education and cut poverty is scary to you?

Uncle_Gabby · September 22, 2009, 2:12pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.

My natural right to defend myself is the more fundamental and important than any other “liberty.”

Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.

And innocent people regularly use guns to defend themselves and their families.

Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes.

You’re going to work on human nature now? If you know anything at all about history you know that’s a scary statement.

So working to improve education and cut poverty is scary to you?[/quote]

Cute. No. No amount of improving education will help those who make no effort to learn, and since you obviously never went to public school, there are a lot of them. No amount of welfare payments will help those who won’t make an effort to help themselves. In fact it exacerbates the problem. Why should you get a menial job to pay your bills when the nanny state will do it for you without you lifting a finger?

Violence and thuggery thrive even when all of people’s basic needs have been met. When men don’t have to compete for their basic material needs, they still have to compete for women. And how do you impress a woman who has all of her material needs taken care of by the nanny state? Through violence, intimidation, domination.

Since you aren’t 6 years old, you already know this. But you’re going to continue to stop your ears to reality because reality undermines your argument that we’d all be better off if we just stopped being so silly and lived our lives the way you see fit.

Cockney_Blue · September 22, 2009, 7:03pm

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote: